Jack Morris vs Bert Blyleven (1 Viewer)

[Bob Henry]

Jules posted in the Sheffield poll, why not Bert Blyleven? This made me think about another old favorite of mine - Jack Morris. Both pitchers had longevity and (I think) you could make a solid case for each one to be enshrined to the HOF.

So, what say you?

Jack Morris

Bert Blyleven

 

[Chemical X]

morris won 20 3x, had a career ERA of 3.9 and never once had a sub 3 ERA. led the league in wins 2x, one of which was 1981 strike season. led league in k's once. won 3 world series. just cause guys like sutton are in the HOF doesnt mean the standards should be lowered.

so, no........

 

[guru_007]

I voted neither. However, if I had to choose one, it would be Morris. To me, Morris at his best, was a better pitcher than Blyleven ever was. Blyleven's stats were primarily attributed to his long career. In 22 years, Blyleven only made two all star appearances, and had one 20 win season. Career w/l of 287-250 is not hall of fame caliber. Of course, I don't think Sutton belonged in either....so who knows.

 

[MrJimiT]

I am a Tiger homer, so understand bias-ness may be occurring...

Morris was the ace of the Tigers from the late 70's until he signed with the Twins (late 80's early 90's). Half of the games he pitched in were at Tiger Stadium, which was not generally known as a pitcher friendly park. I realize the park has nothing to do with K totals, but it definitely figures into ERA and like adjustments. The Sparky Anderson led Tigers were a very good team for most of the 80's which Morris was heavily involved. I'll be the first to admit that he is borderline HOF material at best. But seeing most of his career as a Tiger, then moving on to Minnesota to win a World Series, he was a certain winner and deserves the highest consideration when it comes to HOF admittance. I, for one, would have him in there. But again, I think Trammell & Whitaker should be there as well.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

I think Morris definitely belongs in the hall. He won 250 games, was an ironman, and was the best big game pitcher of his era. He also was the winningest pitcher of the 1980's. The postseason performance puts him over the top. The man was money in important games. That is a sign of true greatness in my opinion, and combined with his longevity and record, should be enough to be a hall of famer.

 

[MrJimiT]

I think Morris definitely belongs in the hall. He won 250 games, was an ironman, and was the best big game pitcher of his era. He also was the winningest pitcher of the 1980's. The postseason performance puts him over the top. The man was money in important games. That is a sign of true greatness in my opinion, and combined with his longevity and record, should be enough to be a hall of famer.

A good point here was raised. HOF shouldn't be JUST about longevity until it gets to the extreme longer careers. Nor should it be about quantity statistics. It should be about how the player ranked among his peers and his era during which he played and competed against. Why shouldn't the winningest pitcher of the 80's be part of the HOF?

 

[Bob Henry]

Some good posts here already.

On Morris, many of the points I'd make were made already by Anthony and MrJimiT. I'll add this, however, that Jack Morris was a 3-time World Series champ on three different teams where he was their big game pitcher for each team.

What sealed the deal for me thinking Jack should be in the HOF was his classic 10 inning pitcher's duel against the Braves that won the World Series outlasting John Smoltz and company (I think it was 1-0 game if my memory serves me well).

Jack tossed a no-hitter in the 1984 season - the last Tiger no-no before Justin Verlander's this year.

One of the negatives, as Chem X pointed out, is that Jack would have the highest ERA of all pitchers in the hall if he were elected. I don't think that has changed, but I know that was the case about 5-7 years ago.

All that said, he's a borderline candidate and I think his support wanes once you get away from Detroit and Minnesota (where he's originally from) and possibly Toronto, where he won his other ring.

 

[Scrap Iron]

I've always thought Blyleven should be in. I don't understand why he's penalized for having a long career. The career 3.30 ERA and 1.20 WHIP speak for themselves and have nothing to do with his longevity. Being in the upper echelon of MLB pitchers for the better part of 22 years should enhance his status, not diminish it.

His W/L percentage, as is the case with all pitchers not named 1972 Steve Carlton, is mostly a function of the teams he played for. In '74, for example, he won 17 with a 2.66 ERA, 249 SO and 19 CG (none of which were career bests, by the way). Those ERA, W and SO totals are pretty comparable to what Santana's done the last couple of years. Why does it matter that he also lost 17 that year? How much better could he have pitched?

Also, I think the 3,700 SO and 242 CGs are monster numbers that simply should not be ignored whether compiled over 22 years or 30 years.

 

[guru_007]

I've always thought Blyleven should be in. I don't understand why he's penalized for having a long career. The career 3.30 ERA and 1.20 WHIP speak for themselves and have nothing to do with his longevity. Being in the upper echelon of MLB pitchers for the better part of 22 years should enhance his status, not diminish it.His W/L percentage, as is the case with all pitchers not named 1972 Steve Carlton, is mostly a function of the teams he played for. In '74, for example, he won 17 with a 2.66 ERA, 249 SO and 19 CG (none of which were career bests, by the way). Those ERA, W and SO totals are pretty comparable to what Santana's done the last couple of years. Why does it matter that he also lost 17 that year? How much better could he have pitched?Also, I think the 3,700 SO and 242 CGs are monster numbers that simply should not be ignored whether compiled over 22 years or 30 years.

Steve Carlton's lifetime w/l percentage was .574Jack Morris's was .577Bert Blyleven's was .534(Don Sutton's was .559)That's a pretty significant drop off. I'd like to see a list of starting pitchers with a lower lifetime winning percentage currently in the hall of fame.One thing that does jump out at you about Blyleven is 242 lifetime career games and 60 lifetime shutouts. Johan Santana has 6 career complete games and 4 career shutouts. It does show you how the league has changed in the past 20-30 years.

 

[Bob Henry]

I've always thought Blyleven should be in. I don't understand why he's penalized for having a long career. The career 3.30 ERA and 1.20 WHIP speak for themselves and have nothing to do with his longevity. Being in the upper echelon of MLB pitchers for the better part of 22 years should enhance his status, not diminish it.

His W/L percentage, as is the case with all pitchers not named 1972 Steve Carlton, is mostly a function of the teams he played for. In '74, for example, he won 17 with a 2.66 ERA, 249 SO and 19 CG (none of which were career bests, by the way). Those ERA, W and SO totals are pretty comparable to what Santana's done the last couple of years. Why does it matter that he also lost 17 that year? How much better could he have pitched?

Also, I think the 3,700 SO and 242 CGs are monster numbers that simply should not be ignored whether compiled over 22 years or 30 years.

Steve Carlton's lifetime w/l percentage was .574Jack Morris's was .577

Bert Blyleven's was .534

(Don Sutton's was .559)

That's a pretty significant drop off. I'd like to see a list of starting pitchers with a lower lifetime winning percentage currently in the hall of fame.

One thing that does jump out at you about Blyleven is 242 lifetime career games and 60 lifetime shutouts. Johan Santana has 6 career complete games and 4 career shutouts. It does show you how the league has changed in the past 20-30 years.

A fair point, for sure. I present to you this player:27 year career, 324-294 (.526) 3.57 ERA 1.247 WHIP ....and a slam dunk HOF first ballot.

That player is Nolan Ryan

Of course, he threw 7 no-nos and has more Ks than anyone in history (i think the most walks, too)

Strangely, if you look at the player comparison by age (one of my favorite time-killing things in life to do) he's most like BERT BLYLEVEN from age 33 and then 37-41.

Interestingly, he never won a Cy Young or an MVP, but he was the AL Pitcher of the Year in 1977.

Probably my favorite player of all-time, but he had many "Blyleven-like" years. In particular, 1987 when he went 8-16 with 270 Ks in 211 IP with a 2.76 ERA and a 1.139 WHIP... and finished 5th in the CYA voting.

Also, for the sake of comparison, Ryan had 61 shutouts and 222 complete games.

 

[Darth Cheney]

Upon closer inspection, I think it's a damn shame that Bert Blyleven is not in the HOF.....

10 years of ERA's in the two's.....

8 200+ K seasons......

17 10+ win seasons.......

career WHIP under 1.2

career ERA 3.31

3701 K's

People say that he was a compiler but he still had 75 wins after age 35. He wasn't just hanging on but could still pitch. If this guy were on ANY type of team in his early years......he might have been a 400 game winner.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

If this guy were on ANY type of team in his early years......he might have been a 400 game winner.